Understanding Aggression: Legal Definition And Your Rights

The initial aggressor doctrine is a legal concept that pertains to self-defence. An initial aggressor is someone who initiates a violent confrontation and, as a result, loses the right to claim self-defence. This means that if the other party responds with force to protect themselves, the aggressor cannot claim that they were acting in self-defence. However, the law does acknowledge some exceptions to this rule. For instance, if the initial aggressor communicates their intention to retreat and no longer poses a threat, they may be able to regain their defensive rights, depending on the jurisdiction.

The definition of an aggressor and the specific criteria for becoming one vary among jurisdictions. For example, some states require that the attack or threat of attack must be calculated to induce a deadly response from the other party. Additionally, there is a distinction between an initial aggressor and a provocateur, which can be tricky for courts to differentiate. A provocateur can provoke violence without necessarily initiating physical contact, such as by using insulting or inflammatory language.

The initial aggressor doctrine has gained prominence in recent years due to high-profile criminal trials, such as those of Kyle Rittenhouse and Travis McMichael, which sparked national conversations about self-defence, gun violence, and racial justice.

Initiating an attack

Becoming the Aggressor

An individual may become the aggressor by law when they are the first to physically attack another person or initiate a fight by threatening to physically harm someone else. The specific definition of an "aggressor" or "initial aggressor" can vary slightly between states and jurisdictions. For example, some states, like North Carolina and Oklahoma, further qualify the initial aggressor limitation by requiring that the attack or threat of attack be calculated to induce a deadly response from the other party.

Losing the Right to Self-Defense

When an individual becomes the aggressor by initiating an attack, they typically forfeit their right to claim self-defense. As Professor Kimberly Ferzan explains, "If I go to punch you, and you go to stop me, then I'm the bad guy, you're the good guy. I can't then say, 'Wait, I'm the one being threatened with unlawful force.' My force was unlawful." However, there are exceptions to this rule, and the law can be nuanced.

Regaining Defensive Rights

In some states, an initial aggressor may be able to regain their right to self-defense by clearly communicating their intention to retreat and no longer posing a threat. Additionally, if the initial aggressor threatens non-deadly force and the other party escalates to deadly force, the aggressor may regain their defensive rights, depending on the jurisdiction. The ability to regain defensive rights can depend on how the initial aggressor's actions and words are construed and whether they effectively communicated their intent to withdraw.

Provocation

An often-misunderstood aspect of self-defense law is the role of provocation. One can provoke violence without necessarily throwing the first punch or physically attacking someone. For example, insulting or verbally abusing someone can be seen as picking a fight and losing your right to self-defense if the other person responds with force. However, determining whether someone is a provocateur can be tricky for courts, as the line between initial aggressors and provocateurs is sometimes blurred.

Self-Defense Considerations

When determining self-defense claims, courts consider various factors, including whether the victim provoked the attack, the level of force threatened or used, the victim's obligation to retreat, the reasonableness of the victim's fear, and the proportionality of the response. While self-defense laws vary across states, the general principle is that self-defense justifies using force only in response to an imminent threat.

In summary, initiating an attack can result in becoming the aggressor by law, which typically forfeits the right to claim self-defense. However, the law acknowledges exceptions, and the nuances can depend on the specific circumstances, jurisdiction, and how the aggressor's actions and words are construed.

Communicating intent to retreat

The duty to retreat is a legal requirement in some jurisdictions that a person cannot use self-defence (especially lethal force) if they could instead retreat to safety. This contrasts with the right in some other jurisdictions to stand one's ground, meaning a person is allowed to defend themselves without retreating.

In the US, most jurisdictions have a stand-your-ground law or apply what is known as the castle doctrine, which means a threatened person need not retreat within their own dwelling or place of work. However, the duty to retreat is imposed in some form in the following 14 states: Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.

In most jurisdictions, initial aggressors may regain the right to self-defence by clearly communicating their intent to withdraw and overtly withdrawing from the fight in good faith. However, this is highly dependent on the specific circumstances of the case and the laws of the state in which it occurs. For example, in Oklahoma, a combatant has the duty to withdraw or attempt to withdraw, and to communicate this withdrawal to their opponent before a right of self-defence is established.

Threatening non-deadly force

In the context of self-defence, threatening non-deadly force refers to a situation where an individual threatens to use force that is not likely to cause death or great bodily harm. This can include verbal threats or physical actions that do not involve deadly weapons.

In most jurisdictions, threatening non-deadly force can result in losing the right to self-defence. This means that if an individual threatens to use non-deadly force and the other party responds with deadly force, the initial aggressor may be considered at fault and could face legal consequences. However, there are exceptions to this rule.

For example, in some states, an initial aggressor who threatens non-deadly force may regain their defensive rights if the other party escalates the situation to deadly force. This is based on the principle that the initial threat of non-deadly force does not justify the use of deadly force in response.

Additionally, an individual who threatens non-deadly force may be able to regain their defensive rights by clearly communicating their intent to withdraw from the confrontation and no longer posing a threat. This demonstrates that they are no longer the aggressor and have de-escalated the situation.

It is important to note that the specific laws and interpretations of self-defence can vary by state and jurisdiction. The determination of whether an individual is considered an aggressor and has forfeited their right to self-defence is highly fact-dependent and may be decided by a jury.

Provoking violence

Provocation occurs when a person is considered to have committed a criminal act, at least in part, due to a preceding set of events that might cause a reasonable individual to lose self-control. This makes them less morally culpable than if the act was premeditated and done with malice aforethought.

The line between initial aggression and provocation is often blurry and can be challenging for courts to distinguish. In some cases, words alone can be seen as provocation, while in others, they may not be sufficient. For example, if someone goes into a bar and insults another person, they have, in some ways, picked a fight, and may lose their right to self-defence. However, the other person is still not allowed to attack them, as the provocateur is not threatening unlawful force.

Provocation is often a mitigating factor in sentencing and can lead to a reduction in charges or sentences. For example, in some common law jurisdictions, provocation is a "partial defence" for murder charges, which can result in the offence being classified as the lesser offence of manslaughter. In the United States, provocation is rarely accepted as a complete defence but is considered a mitigating factor in matters of assault and/or battery, where it can result in a reduced sentence or the crime being lowered to a lesser charge.

Final Thoughts

The concept of provocation is controversial, with critics arguing that it enables defendants to receive more lenient treatment and that it is very difficult to enforce, especially in murder cases where the victim cannot present their version of events.

Mutual combat

Legal Definition of Mutual Combat

Defending with a Mutual Combat Claim

The concept of mutual combat is often used as a legal defence in violent crime cases. If both parties willingly engage in a fight without a clear aggressor, it can be challenging for courts to distinguish between a simple fight and a true assault. Even if a mutual combat claim is not sufficient to dismiss a charge, it may be considered a mitigating factor during sentencing.

Arrest Process in Mutual Combat Cases

When mutual combat cases involve law enforcement, a standard arrest process is typically followed. This process includes an initial investigation, probable cause assessment, physical restraint and detainment, evidence collection, booking and processing, legal consultation, bail determination, and court appearance. During the investigation phase, officers gather information, assess the situation, and determine if any injuries have occurred. They also evaluate whether the altercation was consensual or involved mutual provocation.

Right to Self-Defence in Mutual Combat

It is important to note that engaging in mutual combat or starting a fight can impact an individual's right to self-defence. In California, for example, a person who engages in mutual combat has a right to self-defence only if they meet certain requirements. These requirements include attempting to stop fighting in good faith, indicating to their opponent that they want to stop fighting, and giving their opponent a chance to stop fighting.

State-Specific Variations

It is worth mentioning that the legal interpretation of mutual combat and its implications can vary from state to state. For instance, Oregon law specifically bans mutual combat, stating that a person is not justified in using physical force if it is the result of a combat by agreement not authorised by law.

In summary, mutual combat refers to situations where two individuals willingly engage in physical combat, and this concept has significant legal implications, particularly in the context of self-defence and assault charges.

Frequently asked questions